JAMES WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Walker appealed a 30-year sentence imposed after he failed to return from a two-week furlough and was charged with stealing a car. The court reversed and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing, directing the trial court to hear testimony from the defendant, the arresting officer, and other witnesses to determine whether Walker's failure to appear was excusable.
The court held that the trial court must conduct a new evidentiary hearing in which it receives testimony not only from the defendant but also from the arresting officer and other witnesses with knowledge of the theft charge, and must consider the bearing that the nolle pros has on the correctness of the arrest. Only after such a hearing may the trial court determine whether Walker's failure to appear was excusable.
[1] A trial court may increase a defendant's sentence for violating the terms of a plea agreement, provided the conditions for such an increase are clearly established.
[2] When a defendant's failure to appear is alleged to be excusable, an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the validity of the excuse.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court to not only receive any testimony that the defendant may offer regarding his alleged defense to the new theft charge, but to also receive the testimony of the arresting officer and any other witnesses who have knowledge relating to the correctness of that charge, and to also consider the bearing, if any, that the nolle pros has to the correctness of the arrest”
Establishes the scope of evidence required at the new evidentiary hearing and the factors the trial court must consider in determining excusability
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker pleaded no contest to felony charges and received a four-year sentence. As part of a plea agreement, he was granted a two-week furlough before …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Agreement Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Walker, the defendant, was convicted on several felony charges, after a plea of no contest, and received a sentence of four years incarceration. The defendant entered into a specific plea agreement with the trial court, whereby he received a two week furlough prior to formal sentencing on the condition that, if the defendant failed to return on time or came back with any new charges, his sentence could be increased to 45 years. The defendant was charged with a new offense of possession of a stolen car during the furlough period, and failed to appear on the appointed date. The trial court increased the defendant’s sentence to 30 years, and the defendant appealed to this Court. On appeal, this Court reversed the sentence and remanded the case back to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether the defendant’s failure to appear was excusable. See Walker v. State, 578 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991).
At the evidentiary hearing mandated by this Court, the only sworn testimony presented was that of the defendant, who denied stealing the ear, and stated that he was in the car because a woman was giving him a ride to the hospital to treat his infected finger. The defendant insisted that he was unable to drive the car because of his infected finger. The State admitted that the theft charge was eventually nolle prossed. The trial court then read the arrest form which stated that the police spotted an empty parked stolen car, and had observed the defendant entering the car and driving away. After noting that an information was filed in the theft case, the trial court resentenced the defendant in the present case to 30 years in prison.
Once again, we vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing. At this evidentiary hearing, we direct the trial court to not only receive any testimony that the defendant may offer regarding his alleged defense to the new theft charge, but to also receive the testimony of the arresting officer and any other witnesses who have knowledge relating to the correctness of that charge, and to also consider the bearing, if any, that the nolle pros has to the correctness of the arrest. Once again, if the trial court should determine that there was no excuse for the defendant’s failure to appear, the trial court is free to reimpose the thirty-year sentence based upon the defendant’s violation of the conditions set forth in the plea agreement. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zavon Palmore v. State, 82 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ure to appear was willful. See Id. (concluding a circuit court cannot declare that a defendant willfully violated the terms of his plea agreement in the absence of competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding); see also Walker v. State, 599 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (reversing a trial court’s finding that a defendant violated the terms of his plea agreement because insufficient evidence was presented to support the finding). Instead, the court merely indicated it was sentencing Appellant…
-
Fulton v. State, 66 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…d. at 195-96. We further stated in Johnson that “only in the most merciless and draconian system of justice could such a failure [to appear] result in a forfeiture of the bargained-for sentence.” Johnson, 501 So. 2d at 161. See also Walker v. State, 599 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (reversing and remanding for an evidentia-ry hearing to determine whether the defendant’s failure to appear was willful). The State counters by citing Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), for the propos…
-
Donovan L. Patterson v. State, 188 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…davit to establish the new violation of the law. He argues the affidavit did not amount to competent, substantial evidence that he failed to comply with his plea agreement. See Neeld v. State, 977 So. 2d 740, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Walker v. State, 599 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Yet Patterson neither objected to the use of the affidavit at sentencing nor filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Because we find that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal, we cannot consider the merits. Fla. R.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Mullins, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988)
- Walker v. State, 578 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)